




























" <?■ ' 






* ‘75^ A ^^ '...« 0^ » 

/\‘;-;7;>;^- 0°^ -i^:' °o 

• 4}J^ O *0 

‘ .••, ^.'•““’a^ -- °'*- *"’* 


" ' 

\ 

O A V^ : 

* 'y ^ 





4 .lOp^^ 



• K ^ 4 i^J 

V- 'o.t* jy 

t / • ■<^ Q* fl ® * 





: • 


4 O 

• <L^ O ♦ 

♦ o;, 0 ® ^ * • ♦ 

V' “ ’ * ^ V * * • CK 



* * 
* y ^ 


• <• ^ vf'^ 

'*»•»'* aC» ^ A <. 'o'.;'* 0'' 

♦ ^ 0^ o ® " ® ♦ A^ •*■'•♦ Or c ° " * ♦ • • * 

A -"-fU-o^ -ov*- .‘ 




^ * 

?J J °* 




4 o 
^ 4? ^ 

• <L^ o y* r) 

0 aT O. ^•ly* iS^ 

.. 4,0^ •iii;^* '^'i*' 




® ® T// «n wr A-3 

A> aO^ 

♦ -o ••^. -f 0°^ .‘ —' 



\0 *5^ vHiiwk:^-^ Xiy ^ 


4 «? ^ 

'oa,* y ^ 



4 cy • 1 

< 0 ^ -. 75 ^*' X 

0 ^ ^ O » <» , ^ ^ 




A'' ^ » <* ® ♦#»■«• aO ^ ^ O « 0 ® • • I 1 

r >'jj\%iA" \ -'^fe'-' -^rJ. ♦’^V/k*' 

» „ >:^iiifflfe^, •A\m/Ao 

A ^ *-f,,** 0^ ^ 

0" 0 *0^ A^' . • ' • ♦ ,0^ c « '• ® -» • * ' ' 

• ^ V . 0^ 



>>a 


’ y-‘ ,« 

t • o x-w 4 ♦ ♦ X ^ 

' ** ^ -J ' A *' » L.rw <» 'T 

• V* * yv^ V 





' '^J//{\ A>^ 



o 

,•>*' 

•. -ov" ; 

* jP 'TJ 

7 ^ 'Jy. V 

*'■’• ^0 V‘*.. 

v" ^ aV > 

; A^ .'i^^“" %.<b'^'^ '^•j- 







4 A> 







^ ^ ^ MWVCO^ ' 

^.OhO 

0 ^ « ♦ • > 

T>. 

»» ' 0 ,^ c^ 


♦ <W>Y/i/^ ^ 


\* ^ /j^ 

’ <> 'o. . * 0^ ^ 

6^ o' • • . "*0 j/i 


o 

o‘ iP-n#. - 

V?’ jP ^^ *•-«’ /?i^ 

*0^ «®"*«» ^o ^ **■'•♦ 0^ n ® " ® -r 

^ as'Arr/pr>" ^ ^ *S “ '' 

ti^ *.» • -CL*^ O ^ ^ 

... V *•''■ ^^° 

c;^ - 

o U’_ 




^ r V V ■' ® 







• ^ aX^ ♦ ((CCSR /K ”^r> ^ 

: v-<;^ :MW/0i\ 

r * «/ ^ • 

<* .<fy ^ ' 


g ® " ® ♦ 4^ , »• ' • ^ ^ 


» A 


0^*0 



\-/ 

^ c 


't;^ <y 


A 

■i^' 


\0 "^V * 

1^ ‘'..-I* aO ^ *'o«o® ^<^ "•'•'■ A'^ 

cy, *0^ % • tnL'-v V f ^ <0^ 9 • 




V' 

: : , 


■-^ipi* ■v ^ ■'yjw* •. 

*7^>' ^ '?.?• ,c>^ %, 



• * <L^ 0 ■‘^ 



^NS^JEe^^ « ^' 7::^L~^:x ’ 

jP • ©Ira ♦ ^ ^ o VJIak * V •' 

*7^“ A xf. '... * .0^ ^ ♦ 

,-4^ ••‘JJ’ ^cr e^^**, ”*b, 

.V ..V^,\ <- .-^V. 

‘ ^0^ 


^o ^ ♦tTi • ’ aO 

/> v' .■•»- V y, 



jT ♦ o» r • ^ 

P jPvs 

-f r\ 


aO *■ » , o 

I'X »-.A A % 











V JK'^^3. 

^ 5Grh 

,7\^A 

CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE. 
ALDRICH vs. ROBBINS. 

SPEECH 

OF 

HON. JAMES MANN, 

Ol^. ILLINOIS, 

IN THE 



‘ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Frida>, March 2 , and Thursday, March 8,1900. 


WASIIINOXOlSr. 

1900. 


,.»**r*. 

!^«// I 






« • 


V 


• . 


V. 






P 

f. 

Coes', teovxd Ofj/ 

i O *> u # ^ 0 J* 

^ ■fc- im-^ - • ^ •— 


« 


? 


I 





1 




.// 

>4 


f -f... 



HON. 


SPEECH 


MANN 


OF 

JAMES R. 


Friday, March S, 1900. 

Tlie Hocise havin.a: under consideration the following resolution: 

Resolved, That Gaston A. Robbins was not elected a member of the Fifty- 
sixth Congress from the Fourth Congressional district of Alabama, and is not 
entitled to a seat therein. 

‘ ‘ Resol ved. That William P. Aldrich was elected a member of the Fifty-sixth 
Congress from the Fourth Congressional district of Alabama, and is entitled 
to a seat therein _ 

Mr. MANN said; 

Mr. Speaker: It is not to be wondered at that during the last day 
and a half or two days gentlemen on the other side of the House 
have been endeavoring to prevent the consideration of this elec¬ 
tion case. For a number of days during every day and for a 
number of weeks and months during §very week and every month 
w’e have heard much on the floor aild elsewhere from gentlemen 
on the other side of the House in reference to self-government,” 
in reference to the “ Declaration of Independence,” in reference 
to the “rights of man,” in reference to “self-government” in 
our foreign possessions. It is very awkward for these gentle¬ 
men, after proceeding on this kind of a discussion concerning the 
rights of the people in Puerto Rico to self-government and con¬ 
cerning the rights of the Malays in the Philippine Islands to self- 
government, to bring the argument home that the theory of 
self-government should apply here and to fit their theory of self- 
government to the i)ractice of self-government as we find it in 
this case. 

It is very awkward for them to turn from this beautiful theor¬ 
izing process concerning the rights of man, concerning the rights 
of peoi)le to govern themselves, concerning the rights of these 
men who do not belong to the Anglo-Saxon race, to govern them 
selves—it is very awkward for the other side of the House to pro 
ceed to the discussion of a question which shows their own prac¬ 
tice with reference to self-government at home. 

With long speeches and many words they dw^ell upon the right 
to self-government in the Philippines, but they deal in an entirely 
different way when it comes to the right of self-government in 
this country. They have been very willing to say that the people 
of the island of Negros, the Negritos, might govern themselves 
without our assistance, but they are not willing to let the negroes 
of this country have anything to do with self-government where 
they can prevent it. 

And in this case I think it will be clearly shown, first, that the 
gentleman who now holds the seat in this House and the people 
who stood behind him in his district were not only not willing to 
give to the negroes any part in their own self-government, but 
4196 3 


V 



4 



that by fraud they proposed to exclude them not merely from 
self-government, but proposed fraudulently to use their names 
and pretended ballots in order to establish and perpetuate the 
‘ ‘ white government ” which we hear so much about. 

Upon the line of the right of both of the two races to self-gov¬ 
ernment, 1 take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to 
a circular letter which was issued, printed, and distributed by 
the campaign committee having charge of the campaign of the 
contestee or sitting member in this House. But before doing 
that perhaps 1 ought to call the attention of the House to the con¬ 
sideration of the district itself. 

This contest comes from the Fourth Congressional district of 
Alabama. In that district are six counties. In five of those 
counties the white population is in the majority. In one county 
the colored population is in a majority, and I call your atten¬ 
tion to the figures in reference to the population, as taken from the 
census of 1890. 

In the county of Cleburne the white voting population was 
2,418, the colored voting population 157. In that county, where 
the white voting population in 1890 was 2,418 and the colored 
voting population only 157, where these gentlemen on the other 
side were so anxious to preserve wdiite supremacy and issued the 
circular which I shall shortly read to you—in that county, where 
there were 2,418 white voters as against 157 colored voters, Mr. 
Aldrich, the contestant in this case, received 831 votes as against 
687 for the contestee, Mr. Bobbins. 

In the county of Calhoun the white voting population was 5,706, 
the colored voting population 2,445, and in that county Mr. Bob¬ 
bins received a majority of a little over 200. 

In the county of Talladega the white voting population was 
3,357, the colored voting population 2,804, and Mr. Aldrich, the 
contestant, carried that county by over 500 majority. 

In the county of Shelby the white voting population was 3,147, 
the colored 1,739, and Mr. Aldrich carried the county by nearly 
300 majority. 

In the county of Chilton, where the white voting population 
was 2,317 and the colored voting population 635, Mr. Aldrich car¬ 
ried the county by 546 as against 434 for the contestee. 

In the two counties in this district where there is scarcely any 
colored population, where the population is almost entirely white, 
the county of Cleburne and the county of Chilton, there being few 
colored voters in either county, in those two counties it was Mr. 
Aldrich, the contestant, who received the majorities. 

And yet we are constantly told in these election cases, and we 
undoubtedly will be told in this one, that these gentlemen are 
fighting for their homes as against negro rule, that these gentle¬ 
men are voting for white supremacy as against colored supremacy. 

The fact is that of the five white counties in this Congressional 
district, the contestant, Mr. Aldrich, carried all but one, and that 
he only lost by 200 majority. 

Where, then, did the contestee get his majority on the returns? 

In the county of Dallas, a county which was added to this dis¬ 
trict by a gerrymander, a county which lies at the extreme south¬ 
ern end of the district and is barely connected with it by an 
isthmus, answering to the Isthmus of Panama; in this county of 
Dallas—where the white voting population was 2,146, and the 
colored voting population in 1890 was 8,531 or four times as many 
colored voters as white—it is in this county that the contestee, 
4196 


N 


o 


who stanas, as it were, in his mind, for white supremacy, it is in 
Dallas County, where there are four colored v^oters to one white, 
tliat the contestee seeks to get his majority. But, so far from 
being in the attitude of standing for white supremacy, he has 
been endeavoring, and his organization and his party have been 
endeavoring, to overthrow white supremacy there and to inaugu¬ 
rate a system of fraudulent colored supremacy. 

I call your attention to the skillful way in which they endeav¬ 
ored to excite race prejudice.’* I will endeavor to show to this 
House that in this county at least there was not a single ground 
for it, but that it was a deliberate scheme there prior to the time 
of the election, and it was the intention not merely to disfranchise 
the colored vote, but the intention was that when the colored vote 
was deposited in the ballot box it should be counted for the other 
man, and where the colored vote was not deposited in the ballot box 
at ail they would still use the names of the colored voters in order 
to put in fraudulent votes to count for the contestee. Before 
doing this they issued a circular for the purpose of calling atten¬ 
tion to the fact that they were endeavoring to uphold white 
supremacy, with the clear intention on their part to try to elect 
their man by fraudulent methods. 

In this county they first issued a circular declaring that they 
were upholding white supremacy, while their intention was to use 
fraudulent votes to defeat white supremacy at the very time when, 
with hypocritical pretensions, they were claiming themselves to be 
the propliets of white supremacy. I call your attention to a circular 
issued by the campaign committee of the contestee shortly prior to 
the election. This circular was issued and distributed in the latter 
part of October, 1898. It is marked, ‘’An address to the white peo¬ 
ple of Dallas County.” It is dated at Selma, Ala., October 32,1898: 

To the lohite people of Dallas County: 

The political conditions now existing in the Fourth Congressional district 
of Alabama, and particularly in Dallas County, demand your m93t serious 
and immediate attention. You are menaced by a danger which, if not 
averted, will prove more direful than pestilence in its consequences. 

Let it be remembered, gentlemen, that the only office for which 
anybody was to be voted for at this election was the office of Con¬ 
gressman. No local officer was to be voted for. The only candi¬ 
dates before the people were Mr. Robbins and Mr. Aldrich, for the 
one office. This circular proceeds: 

Little more than twenty years ago this county was redeemed from the 
clutches of ignorant and vicious negroes, led by carpetbaggers and, most 
despicable of all, a few white-skinned native renegades and traitors, w^io had 
taken complete charge of every branch of our local government and inaugu¬ 
rated a reign of misrule and robbery. The deliverance was accomplished, 
in face of what seemed to be insurmountable dangers and difficulties, under 
the intrepid leadership of a mere handful of youi* fellow-citizens—as noble 
a band of patriots as ever led a forlorn hope on the field of battle. 

Accomplished, I might say, in accordance with the words of a 
distinguished Senator, who is reported to have said that they did 
it with shotguns when necessary and by stuffing the ballot box 
when shotguns would not answer. The circular proceeded: 

For more than twenty years you have enjoyed the blessings of good gov¬ 
ernment, but only as the reward of constant vigilance, for the enemy has al¬ 
ways been alert and ready to strike at the first sign of weakness. But your 
sentinels can only stand guard and warn you of approaching danger; they 
can not fight the battles alone; they can not hold tlieir ground unless the 
whole ariny falls in line and takes up arms when the signal gun is fired. 

We, as the campaign committee of Dallas County, give you that warning 
now. We tell you that the cause of white supremacy is at this moment most 
seriously menaced and that the further continuance absolutely depends on 

4196 


4 


6 


the casting of the solid Democratic vote at the approaching Congressional 
election. „ , 

The question of what man shall fill the seat in Congress from this district, 
important as it is, is dwarfed into insignificance when we consider the appall¬ 
ing danger of an organized party of negroes, led by corrupt white men and 
the most vicious of their own race, again taking char ere of our local affairs. 
This they will most surely do if you sleep. A long-continued sense of secur¬ 
ity tends to make men careless in the face of danger; but this is no sensa¬ 
tional or false alarm. The enemies of law and order and good government 
are oven now actively at work in your very midst, with a bold-face effrontery 
that has not been witnessed since the dark days of the early seventies; corrupt 
and venal white men are attempting by the use of money and every art 
known to devilish ingenuity to stir up and array the negroes for an assault 
on all that represents decency and good government in this community. 
Covert attempts have been made to debauch and corrupt some of your best 
fellow-citizens. 

White people of Dallas County, will you submit to these things? If not, 
then such of you as are apathetic or indifferent, wake uiil Look the situa¬ 
tion in the face and act. 

The white man who willfully or negligently fails to cast his vote, under the 
conditions that now surround us, will be guilty of a crime against society. 

Will you let some petty misunderstanding, some trivial wrong, real or fan¬ 
cied, or some unkind feeling toward this or that neighbor, deter you from 
striking a blow against the common enemy? Will you stand still with folded 
hands and deliberately invite the horrible fate that has already overtaken 
the people of a portion of North Carolina as the direct result of their indiffer¬ 
ence and dissension? We do not believe you will; but we appeal to you in 
the name of law and order and good government, and, above all, in the sacred 
name of the noble womanhood of this country, to arouse yourselves and heed 
the terrible object lesson that North Carolina presents to you. 

On the 8th day of November you must vote for a member of Congress 
from this district. Hon. Gaston A. Robbins is the nominee of the Democratic 
party, and as such he is the standard bearer and representative of the white 
people and all that stands for good government in this district, and espe¬ 
cially in Dallas County, as he is the standard bearer of white supremacy and 
all that is decent and respectable. 

William F. Aldrich, the Republican and negro candidate, represents all 
against which the great battle of 1874 was fought and won in Dallas County, 
and against which we have struggled ever since the domination of ignorant 
negroes and unscrupulous and corrupt white men. 

We have no doubt as to how the people of this county will cast their vote, 
but you must vote if you value good government at home. We do not seek 
to unnecessarily alarm you, but we tell you that in our solemn judgment on 
this election depends the future welfare of this county. If every white man 
will do his duty and go to the polls and cast his ballot, all will be well. 

We tell you tlie facts and give you the warning, as it is our duty to do so. 
The result is with you. 

W. W. Burns, chairman; F. L. Pettus, C. W. Cooper, W. C. Phil¬ 
lips, J. B. Evans, E. C. Jones, W. S. Pickering, R. D. Walker, 
J. B. Ellis, S. F. Huston, M. J. Meyer, H. S. D. Mallory, Robert 
H. Tuck, J. H. Lumpkin, M. Woolsoy, S. A. Reynolds, J. H. 
Nunnelee, M. S. Day, R. E. L. Niel, A. C. Coates, of the execu¬ 
tive campaign committee. 

Signed to this remarkable circular, signed to this false, abso¬ 
lutely false, and misleading circular, which was designed to claim 
that the great question of white supremacy was at issue, with the 
intention to use the colored vote so as to defraud white supremacy— 
signed, I say, to this remarkable circular was the name of W. W. 
Burns, the chairman of the Democratic campaign committee of 
the county of Dallas. In conjunction with his name were a score 
of other names, including Mr. J. H. Lumpkin, the sheriff of the 
county, who was one of the board whose duty it was to appoint 
the election officials, a position which called at least for ordinary 
fairness and nonpartisanship. 

Signed to this circular was also the name of Mr, R. D. Walker, 
who had already been selected as one of the judges of election of 
the city of Selma. Signed to it, also, was the name of J. B. Ellis, 
who had already been selected as one of the judges and inspectors 
of elections for the Orrville precinct in the county; and signed to 
4196 


7 


this circular was also the name of S. F. Huston, who was also 
selected as an election judge and inspector for Valley Creek. It 
is a significant fact that these gentlemen who were appointed 
election officials signed this circular stating that the universe 
practically depended upon the success of Mr. Robbins, and evi¬ 
dently they had no intention of giving to the contestant in this 
case a fair show at the polls. It was a deliberate intention from the 
start to give him no representation at some of the polls in the 
county, and then through fraud to deprive him of the'vote in that 
county. 

I wish to say to the House that I do not believe the majority of 
the Committee on Elections No. 1 presented this report to the 
House in any feeling of partisanship. That committee in the 
last Congress had pending before it seven election cases. The 
gentleman from Alabama FMr. Underwood], the Democratic 
whip on the other side of the House, was one of the contestees: 
but this committee in the last Congress, composed practically of 
the same membership as at present, when the contest against Mr. 
Underwood came before that committee with a fair showing on 
the i)art of the contestant, the Committee on Elections No. 1, 
without any feeling of partisanship, examined the case as judges 
would examine the case and reported in favor of the sitting 
Democratic member. When the contested-election case from 
Alabama against the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Brewer] 
came before the committee, that committee, without partisanship, 
examined the case fairly, honestly, and in the face of the most 
persistent arguments by the contestants reported in favor of the 
sitting Democratic member. The same thing was done in the 
case of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rhea] in the last 
Congress. 

In the present Congress, at the very time the Aldrich-Robbins 
case was being considered by the committee, there w^'as also before 
the committee the case of Evans against Turner, from Kentucky. 
If there had been any personal or political feeling on the part of 
the members of the committee it would have cropped out more 
quickly in the case of Evans against Turner than in any other 
case, probably, brought before the committee. Although the con¬ 
testant in that case, Mr. Evans, had been appointed a member of 
the Federal judiciary, all the political strength and power on the 
Republican side from Kentucky was sent before the committee 
for the purpose of making elaborate arguments against the hold¬ 
ing of the seat by the contestee, Mr. Turner. 

But the committee, in a spirit of nonpartisanship, in a spirit not 
biased by political proclivities, decided that case, notwithstanding 
the iiolitical excitement in Kentucky at the time, notwithstanding 
the infamous election law in that State, notwithstanding all the 
l)olitical influence that was brought to bear, the committee, in a 
spirit of judicial fairness, decided that case in favor of the Sitting- 
Democratic member. And it was in no partisan spirit that the 
present case was reported to the House, as it has been. 

During my short period of service in this House I have seen a 
great many contests decided in favor of Democratic members by 
Republican members of the committee, but 1 have yet to see a case 
where a Democratic member of the Election Committee during 
my experience has ever favored a Republican contestant, unless 
the contest was between two Republicans. 

Mr. SIBLEY. Does the gentleman mean that there have been 
419 ; 


8 


\ 


no Democrats that have not opposed the reports of a committee 
when the committee was Democratic? 

Mr. MANN. I said during mj" experience in the House. 

Mr. SIBLEY. I want to interject this remark: I believe you 
are right when you state that when the committee is Democratic, 
universally the committee reports for a Democrat, and I believe it 
is just as true when it is Republican, the majoritj^ reports unani¬ 
mously to support the Republican. I believe that is this case. 

Mr.'MANN. Well, I have just narrated four hotly contested 
cases which came before this same committee, and in each case 
the contestant was a Republican and the contestee a Democrat, 
and the committee in each case voted to seat the sitting Democrat. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been on the other side of 
the House so long that he has not weaned himself away from the 
narrowness of that side of the House. [Laughter on the Repub¬ 
lican side.] 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the House to one of 
the provisions of the election law of Alabama. It is provided in 
the election law of that State that the judges of election, who are 
there called inspectors, shall be appointed by a board called a 
county board, consisting of the sheriff, the county judge, and the 
clerk of the circuit court. These three gentlemen name all the 
inspectors of the election. The law says that they shall name 
three inspectors for each precinct, two of whom shall be members 
of opposing political parties, if practicable, and they shall also 
name one returning officer for each precinct; and it shall be the 
duty of the sheriff to notify such inspectors and returning officers 
of their appointment within ten days after such appointment. 

With the law standing in this shape, the question came up in 
this county as to the appointment of election inspectors, and I 
wish to call the attention of the House to the situation of affairs 
in this county as disclosed by history before this House. This is 
the second contested-election case between the same two parties, 
Mr, Aldrich and Mr. Robbins. It is the third contested-election 
case in which Mr. Aldrich has appeared before the bar of this 
House seeking admission on a contest. In the first election case, 
which was in the Fifty-fourth Congress, Dallas County had given 
to Robbins 5,462 votes and to Aldrich 72 votes. The Committee 
on Elections in that Congress threw out nearly all the votes in 
Dallas County. The Democratic members of the committee, al¬ 
though not reporting in favor of Mr. Aldrich, admitted in their 
report that nearly all of the returns of election officials in the 
county were discredited and unworthy of belief. They stamped 
their seal of disapproval on the manifest fraud committed in 
Dallas County by the election officials at that time. In that con¬ 
test the minority or Democratic members of the committee- 

^ Mr. BARTLETT. Will the gentleman pardon an interruption 
right here? Is it not a fact that the members of the majority 
themselves were not able to agree upon any report; that there 
were three reports—one by two members of the committee. Judge 
Daniels and Mr. Cook; one by four members of the committee, 
whose names it is not necessary for me to give, and one by a mi¬ 
nority of three; in other words, with nine members, were there 
not three different reports in that case? 

Mr. MANN. And all agreed that the returns of the election 
officers of the county were unworthy of belief and ought to be 
discredited. And they were discredited. 

4193 



9 


The report of tue minority at that time, signed by the genial 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bartlett] , who is now the leading 
member on the minority side, makes this statement: 

We come hotv to consider the vote in Dallas County. We are convinced 
that in the precincts of Summorfield. Martins, Lexington, River, Union, Elm 
Bluff, Carlowville, Boykins, Mitchells, and Selma, or city beat, the official 
returns are unreliable, and therefore agree with the majority of the com¬ 
mittee that the result in these beats must be arrived at from the evidence. 

I do not call attention to this matter for the purpose of preju¬ 
dicing the House against Mr. Robbins or in favor of Mr. Aldrich, 
but solely for the purpose of showing the condition of affairs at 
the time the inspectors of election were appointed in 1898. 

In that original contest it was conclusively shown, as is evi¬ 
denced by this report of the minority members, that the inspect¬ 
ors of election, where men had remained away from the polls and 
not voted at all, had had their names put upon the poll list and 
had either put fraudulent ballots in the box for the sake of help¬ 
ing the election of the contestee, Mr. Robbins, or else had merely 
counted the votes and certified as to the returns; and at some 
places, where not 25 votes had been cast, 400 were returned for 
the contestee. 

The same thing was true of the election of 1896. In that case 
there arose a contest between Mr. Aldrich and Mr. Plowman, and 
in that election the official returns of Dallas County gave to Mr. 
Plowman 4,289 votes and to Mr. Aldrich 1,200. The Committee 
on Elections No. 1 reported and pointed out specifically the frauds 
committed by the inspectors of elections at that time and reduced 
Mr. Plowman’s votes from 4,289 to 809, 

So that when the time came around to appoint inspectors of the 
election in 1898, Mr. Aldrich was confronted with two preceding 
Congressional elections in which he had had no representation at 
the polls, in which he had been given not a single inspector or 
judge of elections in this county (although the law provided that 
both parties should be represented), and when in both cases the 
inspectors appointed had swindled him out of the election. 

In 1898, therefore, he presented to the county board, whose duty 
it was to appoint the election officials, a request for the appoint¬ 
ment of one person as inspector at each of the election precincts 
to represent his interests. This is his request: 

To the prohate judge^ sheriff, and circuit cleric of Dallas County: 

Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, acting in our official capacity, hereby 
request the appointment of the citizen named herein in each precinct of Dal¬ 
las County as an inspector to represent the Republican and People’s Party 
at the election to be held on the 8th of November, 1898, for a member of the 
Fifty-sixth Congress of the United States from the Fourth Congressional 
district. 

Dated at Selma this 30th day of September, 1898. 

Then follows for each precinct in the county, 31 in number, the 
name of a person whom the signers request to be appointed as an 
inspector. This request is signed by the chairman of the People’s 
Party of Dallas County, the chairman of the Republican party of 
Dallas County, the chairman of the Aldrich campaign committee, 
and by Mr. Aldrich himself, the Republican candidate for Con¬ 
gress. 

In all fairness and decency, would anybody who intended to 
have an honest election have refused to give to Mr. Aldrich one' 
man out of four at the polls on election day? There were three 
inspectors of election and one returning officer who helped to 
4196 


10 


count the ballots. Mr. Aldhch asked for one-fourth of the elec¬ 
tion officials. The law provided that both parties should be rep¬ 
resented at the polls. He asked for the appointment of reputable 
men, men who could read and write, men who were active and 
good citizens. 

If his request had been granted, he would have no standing be¬ 
fore this House as a contestant. If he had instituted a contest 
when such request had been granted, no one in this House would 
have paid much attention to it. The request was granted as to 
some iDrecincts. At twenty precincts the inspectors nominated 
by Mr. Aldrich were appointed; at eleven of the precincts his re¬ 
quest was utteily disregarded. But he could not find out at what 
precincts the inspectors nominated by him had been appointed. 
The appointing officers gave no notice. The chairman of the 
committee representing Mr. Aldrich sent to the county judge a 
registered letter asking to be furnished with the names of the in¬ 
spectors who had been appointed and offering to pay for a certified 
copy thereof. The only reply he received was a postal card such 
as is usually returned to the person sending a registered letter. 
Mr. Aldrich's request was absolutely disregarded. He did not 
know and could not ascertain whether he was to be represented 
in any of the precincts at all. or, if so, in what precincts. 

And so, Mr. Speaker, remembering the experience of 1894 and 
of 1896, he notified his supporters in many of the precincts to re¬ 
main away from the polls and not vote at all. And I wish now 
to call your attention to the condition as to these precincts, show¬ 
ing that where he had received recognition in the appointment of 
the inspectors he received but little recognition in his contest. 

There are 31 precincts in Dallas County, numbered from 1 to 16, 
inclusive, and from 23 to 36, inclusive. In precinct No. 1, Plant- 
ersville, Mr. Aldrich received an inspector; he also instructed 
his supporters to vote, and the committee has sustained the re¬ 
turns in that precinct. In Summerfield precinct. No. 2, Mr. Al¬ 
drich’s inspector was appointed; the voters were requested to vote, 
and we have sustained the returns there. In Woodlawn precinct, 
No. 3, his inspector was appointed; his supporters were requested 
not to vote, and we have sustained the returns in that precinct. 

In Valley Creek precinct. No. 4, he was refused an inspector or 
any representation at the polls; his supporters were instructed to 
vote, but for fraud shown in the evidence we have rejected the 
returns in that precinct. In Harrell’s precinct, No. 5. his inspector 
was appointed, and his supporters were requested not to vote, 
but we sustained the returns in that precinct. In Dublin precinct. 
No. 6, his inspector was appointed; his supporters were requested 
not to vote, and we sustain the returns also in that precinct. In 
Martin’s precinct. No. 7, his inspector was appointed; his support¬ 
ers were requested not to vote, but we sustain the vote in that 
precinct. In Orville precinct. No. 8, Mr. Aldrich was refused 
representation at the polls; his supporters were requested not to 
vote, and we rejected the returns. In Lexington precinct. No. 9, 
he was also refused representation; his supporters were requested 
not to vote; and we rejected the returns from that precinct. 

In River precinct. No. 10, he was refused any representation at 
the polls, and his supporters were requested not to vote; but no 
election was held and we have found no votes at all in that pre¬ 
cinct. In Pine Plat precinct, No. 11, he was refused representa¬ 
tion at the polls: his supporters were requested to vote; but no 
419G 


11 


election was held, and we counted nothing from that precinct. 
In Old Town precinct, No. 12, he was granted representation at 
the polls; his supporters were requested not to vote; hut we sus¬ 
tained the returns. In Pleasant Hill precinct, No. 13, he was 
granted representation at the polls; his supporters were requested 
not to vote; hut we sustained the returns. 

In Richmond precinct, No. 14, he was given representation, hut 
requested his supporters not to vote. We sustain the returns 
from that precinct. In precinct No. 15 he was given representa¬ 
tion, hut no election was held. In Cahaha precinct, No. 16, he 
was refused representation; his supporters were requested not to 
vote, and for fraud established hy the evidence before the com¬ 
mittee we rejected that precinct. In Burnsville precinct. No. 22, 
he was given representation; his supporters were requested to 
vote; hut for manifest frauds the returns from that precinct were 
rejected. In Union precinct. No. 23, he was refused representa¬ 
tion, hut his supporters were requested to vote, and for fraud we 
rejected the returns. In Pence's precinct. No. 24, he was given 
representation; his supporters were requested not to vote, and we 
reject the returns. The other precincts run about the same. 

So, Mr. Speaker, it will be found that in all of these precincts 
clear down to precinct No. 36, out of the 11 precincts in which 
representation was refused, the committee has found sufficient 
fraud in 7 of them to warrant the rejection of the returns. In 2 
others of these 11 no election was held at all. As to one of them 
the evidence offered, while on its face absolutely showing fraud, 
was offered in rebuttal, and the committee did not consider it for 
that reason, because perchance it might be rebutted itself. 

Of the precincts in which representation was given, 20 in num¬ 
ber, the committee followed the returns in each one but three, 
and in those three the fraud shown is conclusive. If the gentle¬ 
man who is now the contestee before the House or his friends— 
and I do not charge this upon the gentleman himself, for I believe 
that the political conditions in Dallas County have grown so rotten 
and so fraudulent that he could not control the action of his sup¬ 
porters upon the county board—if they had desired to have him 
seated and remain seated in this House, they might well have 
given to the contestant, Mr. Aldrich, and his party one inspector at 
the election in each precinct, because the committee have followed 
the returns in nearly every case where he had representation, and 
have found fraud in nearly every case where he was refused rep¬ 
resentation. 

I call your attention, for instance, to the condition of affairs in 
Valley Creek precinct, No. 4. In this precinct Mr. Aldrich had 
asked for the appointment of one Charles W. Smith as one of the 
inspectors. 

Mr. Charles W. Smith had testified in a previous contested- 
election case, and he was persona non grata to the Democrats of 
Dallas County. He had had the manliness to testify upon a 
previous contest, and therefore they were afraid that he would 
have the backbone to stand up and demand an honest election, 
and he was turned down. They refused to appoint Mr. Smith, 
whose appointment was requested by Mr. Aldrich, and they named 
a colored Democrat by the name of Llewellyn Phillips, but they 
did not let Llewellyn Phillips, who it seems is a fairly honest and 
honorable colored man, take any part in the election at all. The 
returning officer at the precinct took with him an ignorant colored 
4193 


12 


man who worked lor him on his farm, brought him to the polling 
place in the morning for the purpose of appointing him inspector 
in place of Llewellyn Phillips, who, at the prox)er time, was late 
and not on hand. 

They treated Mr. Judge Thomas—Judge by name—very fairly 
at the polls, as it seems, and he thought that everything was going 
smoothly along, but the only man who looked at the ballots when 
they were counted was Mr. T. C. Woods, the returning officer. 

They had it arranged very nicely. The judges of the election 
who acted were Mr. Rountree, Mr. Huston, and Mr. Thomas, and 
the returning officer was Mr. Woods. 

Mr. Huston is the same man who signed this remarkable circu¬ 
lar which I have read to you, a circular which itself demonstrates 
that he was willing to commit fraud, if necessary, for the purpose 
of sustaining his candidate. The law absolutely requires that the 
inspectors shall appoint two clerks, before the election commences, 
of different political parties. 

A Republican clerk was requested. Under the law each party 
is permitted to present a list of voters and ask to have one clerk 
appointed from that list on the morning of election. A Repub¬ 
lican list was presented on the morning of election, but the Demo¬ 
cratic board of judges refused to appoint a Republican clerk at 
all. They did appoint a Republican marker. When the returns 
came in they gave Aldrich 44 and Robbins 158. 

Mr. Aldrich had counted on support from this precinct. He 
knew that the people of the precinct had stood by him previously, 
and he had expected a reasonable vote in the precinct, so he insti¬ 
tuted an inquiry and put these men who had voted upon the wit¬ 
ness stand., 

]Mr. Woods was the only man who had looked at the ballots. 
He had kept the other two judges busy tallying in place of the 
clerks, whose business it was to tally. Mr. Woods had read off 
the ballots. No Republican representative had any chance either 
at reading the ballots or tallying the ballots. 

They made the returns 44 for Aldrich and 158 for Robbins. 
Why they should have given Aldrich so many as 44 is one of the 
things in this case which to me seems very mysterious. I have 
been unable to fathom it. It was just as easy to give Robbins the 
entire vote as it was to give him only 158. 

One hundred and twenty-one of the persons who voted there 
appeared in person and swore that they voted at this election for 
Ml'. Aldrich and not for Mr. Robbins. 

When men refused to give their opponents representation at 
the polls, deliberately refused to give Mr. Aldrich an inspector, 
and then, when the polls were closed, returned for him only 44 
votes, while 121 witnesses come up and swear that they voted" for 
Mr. Aldrich, is that any evidence of fraud or not? The minority 
members of this committee can see no evidence of fraud in this. 
The evidence is absolute, and tlie same condition of affairs exists 
in other districts. 

No wonder that Mr. Aldrich requested his supporters to remain 
away from the polls at many of the precincts and not to vote. In 
the precincts where his supporters went to the polls and cast their 
ballots they were counted for the other fellow. 

Take, for instance, Orrville precinct. No. 8. In this precinct the 
inspectors appointed were Mr. J. L. Edwards and James B. Ellis, 
two white Democrats, and Mr. Josh C. Craig. I suppose Craig 
4196 


13 


was appointed for the purpose of representing the opposite party, 
according to the law. He was a colored citizen who had served 
as a judge of election in prior elections. Mr. Ellis was one of the 
men who had signed this infamous circular, demonstrating his 
fairness (?) to act nonpartisanly in an election. Josh C. Craig, 
who was appointed as the Republican representative, was an ad¬ 
mittedly colored Democrat. He had also distinguished himself 
by serving as one of the inspectors of elections in 1896 with this 
Mr. Ellis; and at that time the Committee on Elections thought 
the frauds sufficient to reduce the Plowman vote from 189 to 36. 

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Ellis, the two white Democratic inspect¬ 
ors, had also served as judges of election in 1894, when the com¬ 
mittee at that time reduced the vote of Mr. Robbins, for the gross 
frauds shown, from 368 to 4. These were pretty men to put up to 
conduct a fair election! Three men who had conducted two pre¬ 
viously rotten and fraudulent elections in that county were ap¬ 
pointed to conduct this election; and the inspector asked for by 
Mr. Aldrich was refused without any reasonable excuse. He di¬ 
rected his supporters to remain away from the polls. In my opin¬ 
ion he was justified in so doing; and I believe that no vote should 
be counted from that precinct at all, although it makes no differ¬ 
ence in the result in this case, so far as the figures are concerned, 
and only reduces the majority. 

I say lhat it presents the same situation as though they had pre¬ 
vented Mr. Aldrich’s supporters from voting with shotguns pre¬ 
sented to them. Where, pray, is it considered fair and honest to 
deliberately ask a man to have his friends go to the polls and vote 
for him, knowing that the votes will be counted for his opponent? 
In two previous elections where we find these two men ha*d acted 
as inspectors the same result had taken place—that votes given 
for Aldrich were counted for his opponent. In one election the 
Committee on Elections had reduced the vote from 368 to 4, and 
in the other election from 189 to 36. What sense was there in 
expecting Mr. Aldrich to ask his friends to go to the polls and 
vote when this condition of affairs prevailed? And if it is not 
reasonable to expect his supporters to go to the polls and vote, 
then his opponent ought not to be permitted to have the benefit 
of the votes cast there for him, because they are cast under such 
fraud that they ought to be rejected as though put into the ballot 
box fraudulently and dishonestly. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore"(Mr. Cochrane of New York). 
The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. MANN. I wish simply to correct the Chair. I am to con¬ 
trol one-half of the time allowed to this side. That was the ar¬ 
rangement. I 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize the gen¬ 
tleman further. 

Mr. MANN. In Lexington precinct. No. 9, the same condition 
of affairs prevailed. Mr. Aldrich asked for the appointment of 
J. Gilbert Johnson as one of the inspectors of election. It was so 
easy to grant this request. If the county board had intended that 
there should be a fair and honest election, the request would have 
been granted; but they refused to appoint J. Gilbert Johnson, giv¬ 
ing absolutely no excuse for the refusal. I suppose he, too, had 
had nerve at some time to stand up against the dishonest and cor¬ 
rupt men in control of that county. 

And who did they appoint in his place? They first appointed 
4196 


14 


W. W. Berry and J. N. Moseley, both white Democrats, and then 
they appointed as the Rei^ublican (?) representative Simon Arm¬ 
strong, admittedly a colored Democrat. Mr. Armstrong had also 
had the distinguished honor to serve at a previous election. In 1890 
he served as one of the inspectors, and in that election the Com¬ 
mittee on Elections reduced the vote of Mr. Plowman, the con- 
testeein the case, from 214 to 21 for the gross fraud shown to have 
been perpetrated by Mr. Simon Armstrong. This Simon Arm¬ 
strong, the Aldrich (?) representative, or the man whom they say 
they appointed for Aldrich, also served as an inspector of elec¬ 
tions in 1894, and at that time the Committee on Elections, in the 
Fifty-fourth Congress, on account of the gross frauds committed 
by him and the other inspectors, reduced the Robbins vote of the 
precinct from 250 to 5. 

The Democratic members of the minority of the committee in 
1894 themselves admitted that the returns of this man and those 
inspectors were fraudulent and should not be counted. Who 
would expect, when the county board refused to give Mr. Aldrich 
representation, by refusing to appoint the man requested by him, 
and named in his place a man who had been guilty at two elec¬ 
tions of the grossest fraud—who would expect, I say, that Mr. 
Aldrich would again ask his followers to go to the polls to vote 
for him and be counted for Robbins? I claim that he was justi¬ 
fied in telling his men and friends to stay away from the polls, 
and if he was so justified at this precinct, then the votes cast there 
for Robbins ought not to be counted, because there is no way to 
punish the fraud perpetrated except by refusing the benefit of it 
to him in whose interest it was committed. The same condition 
of affairs existed at two other precincts, absolutely demonstrating 
the rottenness and fraud intended from the beginning in these 
four precincts. 

Some of my colleagues on the committee will call the attention 
of the House more at length to the frauds in some of the other poll¬ 
ing places and precincts in this county. The opinion of the com¬ 
mittee in this case w^as arrived at, I may say as to the Republican 
members, each one by himself. At least four members of the 
majority made up figures from the record in this contest without 
consultation with each other until after their figures had been 
prepared, and those figures were almost identical. The fraud was 
so patent in this case that we could see no escape from the propo¬ 
sition that the contestee ought to be unseated. We Fnd that Mr. 
Aldrich has a majority in the district of something over 200, and 
we believe that the colored county of Dallas ought not to be per¬ 
mitted to set aside by fraud the votes in the white counties in the 
district. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Thursday, March S, 1900. 

Mr. MANN.^ Mr. Speaker, it will not be expected, of course, 
that I should attempt to reply seriatim to the arguments or state¬ 
ments made by gentlemen on the other side of the House. But I 
wish again to call the attention of the House to the record of the 
committee which has reported this case to the House. The Com¬ 
mittee on Elections No. 1 in the Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Con¬ 
gresses has had pending before it eleven election cases with Re¬ 
publican contestants and Democratic contestees. In no case has 
a report been made to this House by that committee in favor of a 
4196 


16 


Republican or against a Democrat except in this one district of 
Alabama, and that solely on account of election frauds in Dallas 
County. I ask the House to sustain the action of this committee, 
which has examined these cases with care, with caution, with 
nonpartisanship. 

In this Congress our committee has already reported in favor 
of retaining in his seat the Democratic member from Louisville, 
Ky. “Ah,” the gentleman from New York the other day said, 
“you made that report because you w’ere justified by the facts.” 
Aye, Mr. Speaker, w^e reported in favor of Turner and against 
Evans because the evidence before our committee did not warrant 
us in deciding in favor of Evans; and in this case we have re¬ 
ported in favor of Aldrich and against Robbins because the evi¬ 
dence shows that the election machinery in Dallas County reeks 
with fraud. It is not the kind of fraud, Mr. Speaker, that comes 
stealthily in through the open window; it is the kind of fraud 
that stalks boldly in through the open door. There is not a pre¬ 
cinct where we have found against the contestee that is not alive 
with the vermin of fraud. There is not a precinct where we have 
found against the contestee that is not slimy with fraud. 

The gentleman from Alabama has endeavored to cite particular 
instances. We did not throw out the vote of the city of Selma 
because 85 men not entitled to vote did vote. We threw it out be¬ 
cause (apart from other reasons) the conduct of the election offi¬ 
cers at that precinct covered the election there with fraud. 

Mr. Speaker, we have proven our case. The committee has ex¬ 
amined the record in this case conscientiously and carefully—a 
record covering 900 closely printed pages. The committee, who 
have read every page of this testimony, who have considered every 
argument of counsel, submit to you a dispassionate, nonpartisan 
report. They ask you to seat the contestant, Mr. Aldrich. 

It is true that Mr. Aldrich is a Republican and that the con¬ 
testee is a Democrat. Doubtless that is a sufficient reason with 
gentlemen on the other side for voting for the contestee. But we 
do not ask you to vote for the contestant merely because he is a 
Republican. Ah, Mr. Speaker, it means something for the con¬ 
testant to be a Republican in that Congressional district. His 
principal manager has been murdered in that county because this 
contest was inaugurated. He himself has been assaulted because 
the contest was inaugurated. Gentlemen on the other side may 
give reasons as they please; the facts are that Mr. Aldrich, who 
has had the honor, the nerve, and the daring in this Alabama dis¬ 
trict to stand up as a Republican, has been assaulted, has been 
abused, has been defrauded by every machination which human 
ingenuity could devise, and by every scheme which the fertile re¬ 
sources of those gentlemen conducting the election on the other 
side could imagine. 

Mr. Aldrich appears before this House not asking favors, only 
asking justice at your hands. He has not been afraid to defy the 
fraud of Dallas County. He has not been afraid to stand up for 
the rights of man. I appeal to the other side of the House, who 
have talked so much about the “right of self-government” and 
the right of foreign races to govern themselves; I appeal to them 
to rise above partisanship and to show that they are greater than 
mere Democrats. I ask them to vote against the frauds in the 
elections in this district and in favor of the man who was elected 
by the votes of the district. And I appeal to the Republicans to 
4196 


IG 


reward the honest, faithful efforts of the committee on their side 
of the Hous'e to reach a righteous conclusion in this case and to 
support the report of the committee. We have done our duty. 
Mr. Aldrich has done his duty. It remains for the members of 
this House to do their duty by casting their votes in favor of 
righteous self-government, in favor of honest elections, and against 
the most outrageous frauds that have ever been known in this 
country. [Applause.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. I ask that the resolutions submitted by the 
minority of the committee be now read and that they be substi¬ 
tuted for those offered by the majority of the committee. 

The SPEAKER. What is the request of the gentleman? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, 
the majority in this case have reported certain resolutions and the 
minorit y certain other resolutions. Following the ordinary course, 
as I understand, I now move that the resolutions submitted by the 
minority be substituted for those of the majority. 

Mr. MANN. The agreement was, I understand, that the orig¬ 
inal resolutions should be considered as before the House and also 
the substitute resolutions. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MANN. I suppose the vote will be taken on the substitute 
first? 

Mr. BARTLETT. That was the purpose of my motion. 

Mr. MANN. It does not require any motion, I believe. 


419t> 


o 



V 
( i 


V 


>Vv' 


• ', ‘ uVT .'.V , J ta..*v' ./ 





-^-,7 ,. ■ 

PU^r*!' 

4',v.,“ * ‘ 


'K* 


, * 




' : > 


0 


▼ *» • ' I 



t V « 





I 




W-; ^ 


#,,,T '. * 


I' ». 


ri« J-; 


.■ = / 



-A’ 


* ti 

v/;^- 



■ I'v. 







■' 

-: ' J ■■ ' -t?’' 


■« ♦♦ 


* 4^ 



>: 


. i f 




U": : A. 

'TAV' Hf 

r \ • ! ., 


*1(L. il 









'•' ' " I* *• 

.* V ,• .LI”- , ''T 

''^i(-V 


I ■ 




, *! 


I I 





if ■'.' -i^- •■■ - 


P»'5'W;'^-* ^ i" , , ■-^JH^^IV'^' ’ "v .* ('’■• •'ixr. •■■'< '■*' .■' ' ’'■> . 

.Z' -'^:.aii^p '\;-r 



‘‘.‘ I 



. ri * 


w. 


\ » 


'V I ' •» • 


. I. ? f s 

V'j J 


A^‘ 


r, ■, < 


n>'' 7. 



r^ % 


£L 






y • tl 











\^- 



» i 










^ i 

. V ^ ,'J^SSr. -f- 

* ay ^ ^ 



. .& /jA^/k' ■^'S*,. c.'» ♦ V2l^ » 

• «^^** 
j. -^TO»^.* ^ -y^w ' 

^ ■*^r^ A <, '»•* 

•t> ..... 0^ ."JL*’ 



; <i^°^ 

.♦ .0 % *!^-‘ 

' V 



• 4 0 

O ^ 




/ , 

A'' ^ - o „ O -ip •' o « o ’ 

o o >^11111^ - 

* v^ 







■ / • 
c^ 'o*.- 0^ 

. V c'' 

.V 0^ :' 




".(C' 


.H q 






"V ‘wl;* 

.>V.K.. \./ /^f*^-- 


4 . ♦75!v a / 

, '^o ^ .0^ 0 ® " * ♦ ^ 

^ ^ %r C • 

V' : 

»■ -. 

• < 1 .^ q.- 

■> av o 


«• cy * 

“ V 





% -Tf^T* <V 

' O ^ • 


/ ^0 




« ,* O ' ^ 




j- » R a • /vT^ »■ 

' 'W '' 


*•/■•* A® *«>«o’ .-(jr 

vO^ *»*^'^ V^ CV 


# » •» 


<r^ 'o • A 



0^ 0^-^, *^o. ^ 




^ /. 



A* ^ 


* 'V ^ 



i/t 

♦ 


va *.T7» ‘ a ... 

'oV^ .'^^’* . 

.•%o^ %‘‘ 

V % ^ A. ^ 

\ •'<• .❖'' .’jCASg/A-o 




» rk.^ ^ '** 

■'Of#® 

.iP' '.i.:<^'* 

,♦ 4 .^ A 

A 'o..* 0 ^ 

^7*1 4 ^^ • ^ (V -0^0 

. ■^oK 

.■> 

r c^ 4 ^ 

*«• '^.. A c 

^ V4^ ^^^^//}l\ 

v^ 



♦ C\ ^ ^ 

• # 1 * A^ o H O ^ 

1 ^ .•••'. <> ■' 







o • i 




n"^ 0 •• » 

. “T ^ C • - o 


r.T‘ A 



A' ., "^'<cv *" ’ ’ 0 ^°^ • • •' '*%"* ° . ’ • • "S? * *"' ’ * * 0^^^ • • •' '%>■** * 

^ 0.^ ’^.tAW/k’ **^n *' 




* ^ 







’o 


rv*’ A '<>.•* .0^ 'V*'"'* *>'■ ^<0 "°‘‘* 

t /vi7^i_ • "*(* I ■ • r'C^'tv . ^ O 4^ ■' V 







* ‘'t't/*' ^ ^ 


-t o 
. ^ V 

■'>' ‘aO"’ V'-...’ .V ., 

*/..%;^> ... •- /.-'• V 

• Cv r 


» %■ 



♦ A*^ 

1 “ '^Cs * \ 


» *• 


"b V 


o . • aO 

r\ > » ♦ • > 




A /*\ ^ 

» ^ * „ t A 

^ «> « o ’ ^ 

AV * S' '* 

tP 

c ^ 





* . I 


3 V 


..., aO^ % v' , . 

-V -A -- ,V».^ 

,v/ V. , - .-.^ ^... yjrmr^ ^ . 








) 


. „ >0' '0> 

y-'”'' Z”" ... * ' “ ’ \n^' ... ' " ’ ■ a0^“ .’ 

\j »’•<>.- O aV *L,U>nS* ^ *.* f} ^ 

♦ ♦ r/\^£r A, «» ^ 

•'^' " '' “' 




^ rO 

'. "bv" ^-"0^ : 

, * e ^ .0^ »* V V •> 

o ^ ^ c '■0 








♦ V 



* ■ - . v-x/za-awN-.. _- ^Bm^« 'WSITv:^.' a5'-'>. 


V ' 

'^O ‘.TT. •’ “^ "’•».»'’ 4.%’ 

^-=v ‘ ’■' 

./.'i' ’^rm.- 'f'^ 

^ ^r*. 


,4.^' 


S>Xi. 




a'S "Ca '«>•* A' 

bt?^ \t ,0.^ 

'^ > .. vCxvff-Eyy'^ * \ Ak * • 'Z' 

o • -V ^ 






.^^ '$*. 



9 4# 



-* - .‘^ * /r>^ -r V • ^ aN * ie/f//yv^ > ^ 







jP 






Mate DA 


N. manchesteIr, 

INDIANA 46962 





- ♦- O ^ •■ o - 0 /?>' 

<f> » *• o * S> </.* <^^ . * • / O' \/ 

% A /^Va*' ^'5' '^-S- * 

'- : ^y °. ■^®^* ■' 


o 


'S' 












LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 019 308 872 7 




























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































